I saw this story, too, Neil and read it with interest.
Sadly, I don't think it will herald a new golden age of rail in the UK (though I wish it did). My impression is that the present UK government (and any future government of any political persuasion, for that matter) is so locked into the "We Cannot Raise Taxes" mantra that the billions required to properly upgrade Britain's rail infrastructure will never be spent.
I think it is more likely to herald a new golden age of "trying to make do and mend on the tiniest possible budget."
The only possible reason I see why this might change is if certain current trends all went rail's way, for example:
1) The UK Rail industry collectively took on the aviation industry, capitalising on the recent higher profile around "Green Taxes" and carbon costs.
2) The UK Rail industry and all its friends took on the so-called road lobby and in particular, split the unholy alliance between the Road-haulage industry and private motorists (what a smart piece of politicking that has been by somebody).
3) People's daily experience of, and attitude to, the other travel modes became unacceptable to them.
For example, I like my car well enough, but year by year, my daily experience has been that driving in Britain becomes that little bit more unpleasant (in terms of congestion, jams, stress, etc). Once we have 60 tonne lorries on the road, I presume this will get worse.
Although Rail could fix some of these problems, I personally doubt any British government will dare to take on the media and the powerful lobbies that protect the interests against it. I welcome more rolling stock and longer trains for the UK, but one can only sweat the assets so far...
A recent e-petition against further road price charging collected what was it, a million and a half signatures. The most heavily-subscribed pro-rail petition I saw ( or even, pro-Britain, rational transport policy, I would call it), raised a few thousand signatures. That's what we're up against in the UK.
It would be great if my scepticism is proved wrong though.